Pats steamed over Spygate story's timing

"I just talked to one of my Patriots sources who said several members of the organization were furious with the timing of the report in the Boston Herald indicating a club representative filmed the Rams' final walkthrough before the 2001 Super Bowl." - ESPN.com's Matt Mosley

I thought this was an interesting ethical issue to look at. The Boston Herald chose to release the controversial report right before the Patriots played probably the biggest game in the history of the franchise. Naturally it created an unwanted distraction for the team and they were upset about it. And obviously the Patriots went on to lose the game. Should the Boston Herald have held off?

I don't think so. The problem is that there will never be a "good time" for the Patriots to deal with these accusations. Had the Patriots won the Super Bowl and the Herald waited to publish afterwards, the Pats would have complained that the timing put a cloud over their celebration in an attempt to cheapen their undefeated accomplishment. Had the Herald waited even longer and allowed the Pats to celebrate, it would be damaging its own credibility by holding the report for so long. And the Pats would probably still be upset because the off season is a very busy time for teams to revamp their rosters.

Also, this issue had been following the Patriots all season after they were caught filming the Jets in their opening game. The story may have been a new development, but questions about the Pats' integrity were going on long before.

I think it's just a good example of the media playing its watchdog role. People might say this is just a game, and the spying only results on the outcome of a game. But it's not just a game; it's big business. There's a lot of money involved in the NFL, and if there is foul play going on (especially the league commissioner destroying evidence) it needs to be rooted out. One of the media's purposes is to expose wrong doing.